Debbie Wasserman-Schulz said straight out the super delegates were put in place to ensure party insiders would win against grassroots candidates.
And there's nothing wrong with this (note: I support Sanders), the parties have the right to set their own agendas and choose whatever candidates they want: we just don't have to vote for them. The problem, as always, is money. The parties can get so much money from very wealthy people that they no longer require popular support: they know you will have two choices and they market themselves carefully to try to stink least. Meanwhile, even if we chipped in our $10 or even $100 to our parties, collectively we would not be able to compete with the big donors, and collectively, because the parties mean nothing, we do not agree on much: even amongst our arbitrary "liberal" "conservative" divisions.
We need to remove these big money donations to our parties (both of them), so that they once again reflect our own values. And ideally we have more than just the two parties. There are more significant issues and viewpoints than just 2 parties can contain.
There's some difference in caching and virtualization support, the latter of which I really think needs to become a client PC product anyway. Running a HW virtualized OS under linux is very useful for gaming, but right now both nvidia and Intel like to think of HW virtualization as a server feature and charge a bunch of money. But given that Windows is no longer the obvious operating system for either every day use or developer use, HW virtualization is a lot more important.
Octavia Butler was a black woman who can write good SciFi, I particularly enjoyed the Lilith's Brood series. She's not very optimistic and certainly not afraid to murder some sacred cows, but she manages to tell a good story. I do not think she had even half the political motivation as say Heinlein, who though I disagree with his politics, also managed to tell many great stories. Asimov remains my personal favorite.
It is all bullshit and the politics ruined the value of the award. If you can tell an entertaining gung-ho libertarian scifi story filled with heteronormative white people, more power to you. If you want to tell a communal, hedonistic onmisexual gender bender, and can make it entertaining, I'll probably read it. I think I read a book from Asimov once about a tri-gender species that masturbated with rocks, it was entirely bizarre but a fun read (it happened to win both Hugo and Nebula I think).
But that was long ago. These days I read whatever I hear is good, but I have found that "Hugo Award Winniing" has been meaningless for quite a while.
What I've heard from Cruz is a push to return to the Rule of Law where those in power are actually held accountable and insistence on Constitutional limits on government power. Of course if you get your information and opinions secondhand instead of actually researching things yourself, your confusion is understandable.
All most of us here is a bunch of religious nutcase babble, not even representing the form of christianity we all grew up with. It sounds rabidly insane.
The problem isn't really capitalism in itself but the case that there is too much corruption involved.
What we have in the United States is NOT capitalism, for the most part. There are some places where it exists, but by and large we have is a form of negotiated/committee'd command economy.
Continuing to struggle on as though these groups should be part of the same literary ecosystem is ridiculous
It's been irrelevant for a long time. SciFi has bene bad for quite a while too, most of the greats just got old and died, and weren't replaced. As with most other forms of books, word of mouth remains the best way to find good stuff.
[sic]Quite relying on schools to teach your kids the basics you should be teaching them.
Not exactly the solution that I find works as well as you might expect.
Problem 1) Your child may get very bored, since you will be surprised how SLOOWWWWLY they teach things Problem 2) Your child may do math in a way that confuses or irritates his teacher
Here's a cool story that happens to be true.
I figured hey I could teach my child addition with multiple digit numbers, and I did, at 4 years of age he picked it right up, and understood the meaning of the tens, hundreds, etc. places. He really got it. Fast forward 3 years (yes 2nd grade is when they teach this apparently). Now he's learning it "for real" and I'm getting letters home and my wife is getting pulled aside in the hallway that we're "carrying the 1's, we don't carry the 1's in second grade!".
What? "We complete the 10s", "We use STRATEGIES!" "We want number sentences!"
By complete the 10s, as you might guess they mean ex. 14+6=10+(4+6)=20. Of course, this is an interpretation, they do NOT use parentheses or the associative property of addition, that's FIFTH grade, oh my. Instead they write "Number sentences", showing how they do their work 14+6 = ? 4+6 = 10 10 + 10 = 20 Sensible, but VERY error prone as the logical flow is broken up, and you now have to remember to do things. But hey, sometimes it is easier to do it this way in your head, so it's not a worthless skill. So I ask my son to do this, and I tell him do it the second grade way. "But it's so slow, and sometimes I forget a piece". So he proves he can do it, then he shows why his way is faster. He had also apparently showed his "table" (we do everything in groups these days) and a few of the kids realized he was right and they were doing math the "wrong" way, and some of the kids didn't get what he was doing and are now screwed up and that truly is bad.
And we get letters home. Also, if you teach your kid that water is H20, and your teacher thinks H2 is an element, and your kid knows better, that is embarrassing too. Apparently they don't teach basic chemistry for child psychology degrees, that's 7th grade.
We let parents dictate what their children should be taught,
Definitely not true. Perhaps we let "the collective" decide, but I assure you that what I see in elementary school in particular makes me visibly angry.
It's all about growth. It doesn't matter if you are one of the biggest companies in the world, you must grow. If you aren't growing they will send in the activists and slice you up and sell your entrails off. And I think this person would very much like to buy some of those entrails, evidently he knows exactly how to shitify them in true chinese fashion, and resell them back to us.
Before we go down the road of namecalling, how about trying to offer up a proof? Most of us do not learn quantum mechanics in school, nor is it relevant to our lives in a direct way, thus all we have are vague and imprecise english to summarize things, and as it happened, most of the key people in this field were German. And that's why we use math and not english to talk about science.
My attempt, and I am probably wrong I took one semester of modern physics to satisfy a degree requirement, is that if p=mv, (where p is momentum, not position), you can see clearly that uncertainty is mathematical definite, not an empirical approximate as derived from newtonian physics. Position is the first derivative of velocity, defined as lim(h->0) (v(t+h)+v(t))/h. As h approaches 0, this equation blows up to plus or minus infinity. Thus if we know velocity precisely, we thus cannot be sure about position: that equation explodes. Going the other way, if we know position precisely, we have no way of knowing velocity (change in position) without a second data point. If we know two positions precisely, we only know average velocity (h>0, above). Thus the best we can do is describe these quantities simultaneously is using stochastic methods. This is another branch of mathematics that most of us never touch, and makes reading actual quantum mechanics theories very challenging.
That it is a mathematical impossibility to resolve this uncertainty derives directly from newtonian physics, no quantum magic required. Now you can still cling to the hidden state argument: that just because we cannot know these things does not mean they do not exist: possibly your billiard ball has a definitely position and definite velocity and it is our mathematical model that is not up to the task. This boils down to an unhelpful theory is unhelpful, we can assume they exist, but we can only approximate their values so back to square 1. In quantum mechanics, this idea of hidden state has been continuously asserted and refuted via empirical testing. That doesn't mean it's wrong, we may still be entirely ignorant about what is really going on, that's what scientists do and why every time they say they're "almost done", something crazy happens. It seems to me that a lot of scientists are willing to let the very odd behaviors they see in quantum mechanics pass by rather than seeking a deeper truth.
On the other hand, a lot of useful things can be done with the state-free model, and that's where I prove myself again to be an engineer and not a scientist - if a model exists that i can use to build something, it is good enough for me.
Except that we would be entirely incapable of doing so. Our lives would be prescribed, our actions determined entirely by machine state. We may think we have free will, what we actually are is an equation determined by state.
I don't see hunger, poor health or desperation as motivations to improve yourself, those are necessities of life. Either you commit suicide or you find a way to take what you need from others, one way or another. History shows more choose the latter than the former, and honestly I can hardly blame them. The same "fuck you i've got mine" mentality is pervasive across the human condition, I am more important to me than you.
I see xboxes and iphones and designer shoes and nice houses in the 'burbs and all that stuff as a motivation to do more and better yourself and contribute and I am fairly certain they are motivation enough for the majority. I have no problem with giving a person a 10x10 box in which to live, access to health care, access to food, heat, water, education and sanitation. That will keep you alive. If you want more you have to work for it. My opinion is that most people will attempt to get more, and in doing so ultimately pay off our investment, and that will help me stay alive and unstabbed, and them get bling. I would call this socialized life not "basic income" but "basic living". You earn no money, but you will survive as long as you wish to. You can figure out how to work your way out (education is the key here), or you can merely live. The boredom alone might motivate many.
I do not see basic income as being even remotely like this, nor based on our economy likely to do anything but jack inflation through the roof. Currency is a squirrely social mechanism to trade forms of productivity. It's broken, it's unfair, it's the best we've got. But without actual productivity it has no meaning. The greater the productivity, the better it is for every single one of us. We owe it to ourselves to figure out how to get people to be as productive as possible, to ensure they directly feel the benefits of that increased productivity and to want more. Letting people rot serves no one, our present system of "Fuck you I got mine" ensures people will be unproductive because they are poorly trained to get a job, or else don't feel like their work is getting them anything but more work without end.
I'm not sure of any time in the last 20 years when console horsepower exceeded PC horsepower. It has just become laughable in the last generation or two. The one benefit you had was that the game was designed to run on exactly that platform and optimized for that platform so you had less of an unpredictable experience to your customer.
But they have fallen so far behind, and so much more time is spent on trying to make the console into a PC or appliance (ipad/iphone) with a bad input device.
Videos were obtainable easily in my day, but on VHS or via cable (particularly those cable boxes with illegal decode modifications that many may have had). I hear tell they existed on reels for the generation before me, and could be snuck into for the generation before that.
Our resolution is definitely better. I'm not sure at what resolution porn begins to corrupt the mind.
There's no way to stop it, one way or another Ford will get it. Every technology company on planet earth buys their competitors products and does a tear-down analysis. Often it's done by marketing or marketgineers to come up with a product spec & cost target, but if you are smart you pay attention to what your competition is doing. If nothing else it challenges your notions of what is possible, and that is always a good thing.
I've taken apart many systems in my time. You know you're in a healthy organization when you take apart a competitors system and say "Wow, they did something really clever here". You know it's time to leave your company when you do it, see something really clever, and your peers say "Aw but that must cost too much" or "We'll never get to be able to do this", etc.
Well you should have come across the outerbridge to staten island, plenty of guys running various deli's would have sold them to you provided you paid cash and bought some other products that would disguise it.
That's if you wanted to be all legit, most of us just found our parents collection, or some community pool of the things. Honestly I'm not sure there's been a time in history when teenage boys who wanted porn couldn't get it. And by that I mean nearly all teenage boys. Most of us turn out "fine" and somehow carry on normal relationships with our spouses, in spite of the alleged violence and denigration inherent in porn that poisoned our minds.
The only thing the internet has robbed us of is the nostalgic hunts and barter system that was the underpinning of boyhood.
Slashdot Mirror
Debbie Wasserman-Schulz said straight out the super delegates were put in place to ensure party insiders would win against grassroots candidates.
And there's nothing wrong with this (note: I support Sanders), the parties have the right to set their own agendas and choose whatever candidates they want: we just don't have to vote for them. The problem, as always, is money. The parties can get so much money from very wealthy people that they no longer require popular support: they know you will have two choices and they market themselves carefully to try to stink least. Meanwhile, even if we chipped in our $10 or even $100 to our parties, collectively we would not be able to compete with the big donors, and collectively, because the parties mean nothing, we do not agree on much: even amongst our arbitrary "liberal" "conservative" divisions.
We need to remove these big money donations to our parties (both of them), so that they once again reflect our own values. And ideally we have more than just the two parties. There are more significant issues and viewpoints than just 2 parties can contain.
There's some difference in caching and virtualization support, the latter of which I really think needs to become a client PC product anyway. Running a HW virtualized OS under linux is very useful for gaming, but right now both nvidia and Intel like to think of HW virtualization as a server feature and charge a bunch of money. But given that Windows is no longer the obvious operating system for either every day use or developer use, HW virtualization is a lot more important.
Octavia Butler was a black woman who can write good SciFi, I particularly enjoyed the Lilith's Brood series. She's not very optimistic and certainly not afraid to murder some sacred cows, but she manages to tell a good story. I do not think she had even half the political motivation as say Heinlein, who though I disagree with his politics, also managed to tell many great stories. Asimov remains my personal favorite.
It is all bullshit and the politics ruined the value of the award. If you can tell an entertaining gung-ho libertarian scifi story filled with heteronormative white people, more power to you. If you want to tell a communal, hedonistic onmisexual gender bender, and can make it entertaining, I'll probably read it. I think I read a book from Asimov once about a tri-gender species that masturbated with rocks, it was entirely bizarre but a fun read (it happened to win both Hugo and Nebula I think).
But that was long ago. These days I read whatever I hear is good, but I have found that "Hugo Award Winniing" has been meaningless for quite a while.
What I've heard from Cruz is a push to return to the Rule of Law where those in power are actually held accountable and insistence on Constitutional limits on government power. Of course if you get your information and opinions secondhand instead of actually researching things yourself, your confusion is understandable.
All most of us here is a bunch of religious nutcase babble, not even representing the form of christianity we all grew up with. It sounds rabidly insane.
The problem isn't really capitalism in itself but the case that there is too much corruption involved.
What we have in the United States is NOT capitalism, for the most part. There are some places where it exists, but by and large we have is a form of negotiated/committee'd command economy.
Continuing to struggle on as though these groups should be part of the same literary ecosystem is ridiculous
It's been irrelevant for a long time. SciFi has bene bad for quite a while too, most of the greats just got old and died, and weren't replaced. As with most other forms of books, word of mouth remains the best way to find good stuff.
I would like to mod this with the poop emoji.
[sic]Quite relying on schools to teach your kids the basics you should be teaching them.
Not exactly the solution that I find works as well as you might expect.
Problem 1) Your child may get very bored, since you will be surprised how SLOOWWWWLY they teach things
Problem 2) Your child may do math in a way that confuses or irritates his teacher
Here's a cool story that happens to be true.
I figured hey I could teach my child addition with multiple digit numbers, and I did, at 4 years of age he picked it right up, and understood the meaning of the tens, hundreds, etc. places. He really got it. Fast forward 3 years (yes 2nd grade is when they teach this apparently). Now he's learning it "for real" and I'm getting letters home and my wife is getting pulled aside in the hallway that we're "carrying the 1's, we don't carry the 1's in second grade!".
What? "We complete the 10s", "We use STRATEGIES!" "We want number sentences!"
By complete the 10s, as you might guess they mean ex. 14+6=10+(4+6)=20. Of course, this is an interpretation, they do NOT use parentheses or the associative property of addition, that's FIFTH grade, oh my. Instead they write "Number sentences", showing how they do their work
14+6 = ?
4+6 = 10
10 + 10 = 20
Sensible, but VERY error prone as the logical flow is broken up, and you now have to remember to do things. But hey, sometimes it is easier to do it this way in your head, so it's not a worthless skill. So I ask my son to do this, and I tell him do it the second grade way. "But it's so slow, and sometimes I forget a piece". So he proves he can do it, then he shows why his way is faster. He had also apparently showed his "table" (we do everything in groups these days) and a few of the kids realized he was right and they were doing math the "wrong" way, and some of the kids didn't get what he was doing and are now screwed up and that truly is bad.
And we get letters home. Also, if you teach your kid that water is H20, and your teacher thinks H2 is an element, and your kid knows better, that is embarrassing too. Apparently they don't teach basic chemistry for child psychology degrees, that's 7th grade.
We let parents dictate what their children should be taught,
Definitely not true. Perhaps we let "the collective" decide, but I assure you that what I see in elementary school in particular makes me visibly angry.
It's all about growth. It doesn't matter if you are one of the biggest companies in the world, you must grow. If you aren't growing they will send in the activists and slice you up and sell your entrails off. And I think this person would very much like to buy some of those entrails, evidently he knows exactly how to shitify them in true chinese fashion, and resell them back to us.
Before we go down the road of namecalling, how about trying to offer up a proof? Most of us do not learn quantum mechanics in school, nor is it relevant to our lives in a direct way, thus all we have are vague and imprecise english to summarize things, and as it happened, most of the key people in this field were German. And that's why we use math and not english to talk about science.
My attempt, and I am probably wrong I took one semester of modern physics to satisfy a degree requirement, is that if p=mv, (where p is momentum, not position), you can see clearly that uncertainty is mathematical definite, not an empirical approximate as derived from newtonian physics. Position is the first derivative of velocity, defined as lim(h->0) (v(t+h)+v(t))/h. As h approaches 0, this equation blows up to plus or minus infinity. Thus if we know velocity precisely, we thus cannot be sure about position: that equation explodes. Going the other way, if we know position precisely, we have no way of knowing velocity (change in position) without a second data point. If we know two positions precisely, we only know average velocity (h>0, above). Thus the best we can do is describe these quantities simultaneously is using stochastic methods. This is another branch of mathematics that most of us never touch, and makes reading actual quantum mechanics theories very challenging.
That it is a mathematical impossibility to resolve this uncertainty derives directly from newtonian physics, no quantum magic required. Now you can still cling to the hidden state argument: that just because we cannot know these things does not mean they do not exist: possibly your billiard ball has a definitely position and definite velocity and it is our mathematical model that is not up to the task. This boils down to an unhelpful theory is unhelpful, we can assume they exist, but we can only approximate their values so back to square 1. In quantum mechanics, this idea of hidden state has been continuously asserted and refuted via empirical testing. That doesn't mean it's wrong, we may still be entirely ignorant about what is really going on, that's what scientists do and why every time they say they're "almost done", something crazy happens. It seems to me that a lot of scientists are willing to let the very odd behaviors they see in quantum mechanics pass by rather than seeking a deeper truth.
On the other hand, a lot of useful things can be done with the state-free model, and that's where I prove myself again to be an engineer and not a scientist - if a model exists that i can use to build something, it is good enough for me.
Nonsense, we're paying for a particular bandwidth, only that they don't actually want us to use it very much.
I agree with the conclusion on the present understanding of science. I hope it is wrong.
Except that we would be entirely incapable of doing so. Our lives would be prescribed, our actions determined entirely by machine state. We may think we have free will, what we actually are is an equation determined by state.
Computer...arch
Nothing. Clearly he is wrong.
If they cannot pay for it, they do not have access to it.
I don't see hunger, poor health or desperation as motivations to improve yourself, those are necessities of life. Either you commit suicide or you find a way to take what you need from others, one way or another. History shows more choose the latter than the former, and honestly I can hardly blame them. The same "fuck you i've got mine" mentality is pervasive across the human condition, I am more important to me than you.
I see xboxes and iphones and designer shoes and nice houses in the 'burbs and all that stuff as a motivation to do more and better yourself and contribute and I am fairly certain they are motivation enough for the majority. I have no problem with giving a person a 10x10 box in which to live, access to health care, access to food, heat, water, education and sanitation. That will keep you alive. If you want more you have to work for it. My opinion is that most people will attempt to get more, and in doing so ultimately pay off our investment, and that will help me stay alive and unstabbed, and them get bling. I would call this socialized life not "basic income" but "basic living". You earn no money, but you will survive as long as you wish to. You can figure out how to work your way out (education is the key here), or you can merely live. The boredom alone might motivate many.
I do not see basic income as being even remotely like this, nor based on our economy likely to do anything but jack inflation through the roof. Currency is a squirrely social mechanism to trade forms of productivity. It's broken, it's unfair, it's the best we've got. But without actual productivity it has no meaning. The greater the productivity, the better it is for every single one of us. We owe it to ourselves to figure out how to get people to be as productive as possible, to ensure they directly feel the benefits of that increased productivity and to want more. Letting people rot serves no one, our present system of "Fuck you I got mine" ensures people will be unproductive because they are poorly trained to get a job, or else don't feel like their work is getting them anything but more work without end.
I'm not sure of any time in the last 20 years when console horsepower exceeded PC horsepower. It has just become laughable in the last generation or two. The one benefit you had was that the game was designed to run on exactly that platform and optimized for that platform so you had less of an unpredictable experience to your customer.
But they have fallen so far behind, and so much more time is spent on trying to make the console into a PC or appliance (ipad/iphone) with a bad input device.
That's actually WHY Slashdot hates Transhumanism
No, we hate it because it sounds like new-age trash, unsubstantiated by actual data beyond believable ambitions.
He's going to die just like the rest of us
I hope not to die having choked to death on pills. I eat this ribeye in the hopes of a very manly heart attack just like everyone else.
Videos were obtainable easily in my day, but on VHS or via cable (particularly those cable boxes with illegal decode modifications that many may have had). I hear tell they existed on reels for the generation before me, and could be snuck into for the generation before that.
Our resolution is definitely better. I'm not sure at what resolution porn begins to corrupt the mind.
Totally missed it, you are correct.
Why would Tesla sell to Ford?
There's no way to stop it, one way or another Ford will get it. Every technology company on planet earth buys their competitors products and does a tear-down analysis. Often it's done by marketing or marketgineers to come up with a product spec & cost target, but if you are smart you pay attention to what your competition is doing. If nothing else it challenges your notions of what is possible, and that is always a good thing.
I've taken apart many systems in my time. You know you're in a healthy organization when you take apart a competitors system and say "Wow, they did something really clever here". You know it's time to leave your company when you do it, see something really clever, and your peers say "Aw but that must cost too much" or "We'll never get to be able to do this", etc.
Well you should have come across the outerbridge to staten island, plenty of guys running various deli's would have sold them to you provided you paid cash and bought some other products that would disguise it.
That's if you wanted to be all legit, most of us just found our parents collection, or some community pool of the things. Honestly I'm not sure there's been a time in history when teenage boys who wanted porn couldn't get it. And by that I mean nearly all teenage boys. Most of us turn out "fine" and somehow carry on normal relationships with our spouses, in spite of the alleged violence and denigration inherent in porn that poisoned our minds.
The only thing the internet has robbed us of is the nostalgic hunts and barter system that was the underpinning of boyhood.
It was always the shop worker that was the gatekeeper to bar tobacco, alcohol and porn from minors.
Somehow in my childhood I did not notice children deprived of any of these things, long before the internet or even AOL.